Fashion trend website Refinery29 published an article recently with the headline “The Jeremy Scott Effect: How ‘Stealing’ Logos Can Technically Be Legal.” The second I came across it, I obviously began to develop a couple of opinions. Is it really technically legal? Are some logos really just up for grabs? I’m not so sure.

The Fall 2015 collection of Scott’s namesake line, presented in February at New York Fashion Week, is rather lacking in commercial logos. Rather, he saved the really fun stuff for Moschino where he sent Looney Toons-emblazoned sweatshirts down the runway at last week’s Milan show. Scott has also brought his own versions of classic American brands like McDonald’s and Barbie to the line.

In the case of the McDonald’s and Barbie capsule collections, Scott always alters logos to put his own spin on them. So technically he’s not stealing anything. Even Moschino’s version of the Barbie logo is distinctly different from any past or present logos. As a matter of fact, the collection was more of a collaboration as Scott even designed a doll for Mattel.

Refinery29 does go on to explain that designers need to get permission from a company to use its logo, as Opening Ceremony did with Kodak. But if anything, it’s not a matter of “stealing” logos, but rather clothing companies collaborating with other consumer brands. T-shirt company Junk Food, known for using images from brands like Coca-Cola as well as bands and tv shows, was one of the originators of this notion. Wherever they sell their products, there’s always a note crediting a company’s featured image.

While a lot of areas in fashion law are fuzzy, in this case it’s pretty clear; there’s no technical way to steal another company’s logo. It’s all a matter of strict licensing practices and creative collaborations.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why There’s Nothing Legal About “Stealing” Logos appeared first on Law Street.

They say “Art is what you can get away with,” but how does one know when they’ve crossed the line? That was the essential question at the recent panel discussion “After Charlie: What’s next for art, satire, and censorship?” The event, co-hosted by the French Institute Alliance Française (FIAF) and PEN American Center and held at FIAF’s Florence Gould Hall in New York, was mediated by WNYC’s Leonard Lopate and featured four political cartoonists and journalists: Art Spiegelman, Molly Crabapple, Emmanuel “Manu” Letouzé, and Françoise Mouly.

I went in thinking that it was going to be a depressing evening as I listened to the panelists rehash the horrible events that happened in Paris last month, and more recently in Copenhagen, but they turned out to be a very insightful yet comical group of people. (They are cartoonists after all!)

The event was not meant to focus on the tragedy but rather on the future of art and journalism. The reason behind terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo is to attempt to reshape what journalists write. Especially after these kinds of incidents, satirical journalists may feel pressure from two sources of censorship: censorship under the law and a form of self-censorship in which they may subconsciously feel inclined to censor their work to protect others’ feelings.

This doesn’t appear to be an issue for the particular panelists who spoke here. Spiegelman, who has drawn a number of covers for the New Yorker, even went so far as to say that political correctness is one of his pet peeves. The main inspiration behind the Taliban attack on Charlie Hebdo was the publication’s tendency to depict the Muslim prophet, Mohammed. “I would have no interest in drawing the prophet unless someone told me I couldn’t,” explained Spiegelman.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

Crabapple, my personal favorite speaker of the night, claimed art is different from written journalism in that it “can be yanked out of context” and it only “irritates assholes.” At the same time, she said that “context is over for media,” due to the fact that most of it is now consumed online via social media. However, that certainly does not stop her from stirring controversy–it even makes it better for her. One of the most controversial comics she ever made–she said she even got death threats as a result of it–was one that she drew of Guantanamo Bay. She wasn’t allowed to draw the faces of anyone who works there, so she substituted the guards’ faces with smiley faces. On one side of the fence some of them are drinking and fooling around, while on the other side some are force-feeding a prisoner. The prisoner, however, is depicted with a normal face, as opposed a smiley face. Above she writes, “It Don’t Gitmo Better Than This.” She described Guantanamo Bay as “one of the most censored places in the world” and finds it amusing that people were so upset that she “was misrepresenting the wonderful place that is Guantanamo Bay.”

There’s a distinct difference, however, between the way that French and American cultures react to controversial comics like these. Editor and art director of the the New Yorker, Mouly, could attest to that explaining that in U.S. there’s a sort of “fear of the cartoonist,” while cartoons in France are a more ubiquitous form of journalism. Also the U.S. has a different “tradition of the free press” in that secularism is so ingrained into our politics. For example, the French are unable to understand why it’s so important what religion a politician is or whether or not he’s had an affair. Mouly’s husband Spiegelman agreed, claiming that “Steven Colbert and John Stewart are the closest thing the U.S. has to cartoonists.” 

French-born Manu attested to experiencing such a cultural divide himself, claiming that American publications have been “surprised that I would use a cartoon for such a serious [news] publication.” Manu probably had the most first-hand experience with this as not only had he met some of the cartoonists at Charlie, but also grew up dreaming of drawing for the publication. In fact, after the attacks he made a tribute cartoon that read “They killed my idols.”

My favorite part of the night was the panel’s analysis of various New Yorker covers from over the years, many of which were drawn by Spiegelman. The New Yorker’s covers are the most analogous to the work in Charlie Hebdo of all American cartoons. And now with the internet, their impact on history has become even more apparent. Remember the cover with Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie from June 2013 when gay marriage was passed in New York? What about the satirical covers of President Obama during his 2008 campaign run? While not nearly as subversive, New Yorker covers are an ingrained part of American history just as Charlie‘s are for French culture.

One Charlie cover however, reminded me of a recent cover of Paper magazine featuring a certain pop culture celebrity. The 1978 cover features “the ass of a Jewish woman,” as the headline roughly translates. And even though it’s only a drawing, Charlie seems to take it a step further than Kim K by including pubic hair at the crotch.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

As Spiegelman perfectly summed it up: “Cartoons are really primitive language.” In a lot ways you can get away with being more controversial with a drawing than with words or even photographs. While words can be taken out of context too, art definitely leaves more to the reader’s imagination. So in a way, “Je suis Charlie” makes sense as we as viewers contribute just as much to the publication as its creators.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Am Charlie, and So Are You: How Terrorism Affects Censorship appeared first on Law Street.

Now that awards season is officially in full swing, it means that red carpet season is upon us as well. And as we watch the red carpet coverage there seems to be only one question that reporters are interested in asking female attendees: Who are you wearing?

This year, The Representation Project launched a campaign promoting the hashtag #AskHerMore. The idea is for red carpet reporters to ask female actors and entertainers about anything other than their appearance.

The whole reason I write here on Law Street is because I am in fact a woman who is interested in business, politics, and law (and yes I do identify as the “F-word”). But I’m a little different from most of the other Law Street ladies (and men), because I work in the fashion industry as well. While many might argue that law and fashion are like apples and oranges, my career is focused around fighting against that notion. That said, can #AskHerMore and the fashion industry exist in solidarity? Absolutely, but allow me explain why.

The main reason most attend a red carpet event is that their work is nominated or because they are being celebrated in some shape or form that evening. While reporters may want to ask first-time nominees what it feels like to be recognized, they’re not going to ask someone like Meryl Streep the same questions for the umpteenth time. Asking what they’re wearing can serve as a sort of ice-breaker for any nominee. I’m not so sure, however, that “What are you wearing?” should be the only question women or men on the red carpet are asked.

Also, the fashion and entertainment industries are both based on artistic forms of expression. You can’t really have one without the other (Ahem, best costume design award?). But you also can’t have art without politics either. In fact, the reason behind a given celebrity wearing a certain designer is strictly business. These celebs have contracts with fashion houses that require them to wear designs that are meticulously picked out and designed for a given public appearance. In turn, these designers get calls from clients the second the celeb reveals to the reporter what he or she is wearing.

That’s not to say, however, that even celebrities aren’t fed up with being asked about their appearance. Last month during the Golden Globes, several celebrities chose to pass on partaking in E! News’s “mani-cam.”

While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reporters asking celebs what they’re wearing, the idea behind #askhermore is that it shouldn’t be the only thing they’re asking. But what else are they supposed to ask in the few seconds that they have to interview them? I’m not sure. If it were up to me, I would just get rid of E! News’ red carpet coverage altogether. It all gets covered online anyway. That way we can focus on the actual show and honoring these women for their work, while still preserving the Old Hollywood tradition or seeing celebs all dolled up in their best evening wear.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AskHerMore But What? Feminism, Fashion, and Awards Season appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Couture Week, my fellow fashion law-istas! On Tuesday while we were just dodging the Snowmageddon here in New York, Karl Lagerfeld threw a garden party in Paris for Chanel’s Spring ’15 Haute Couture show. Things haven’t been all sunshine and daisies, however, over at the Haus of Chanel as it filed a counterfeiting suit just last month.

Chanel is suing online e-tailer Shop Jeen not only for copying its goods but also its way of doing business. Shop Jeen produced imitation Chanel iPhone cases and allegedly marketed them in the same way as the couturier. According to The Fashion Law, Chanel claims that Shop Jeen’s actions have cost it irreparable damage and “the Defendants have been unjustly enriched.” Chanel is demanding $2 million “for each counterfeit trademark used and product sold,” in addition to attorney and investigative fees.

As you know, I’m all for designers defending their own intellectual property, but I’m not so sure about their ability to sue someone for stealing the way they do business. If a product is already a knockoff, wouldn’t it come with the territory that it is advertised in the same way as the original? If it were any other company but Chanel this might not really fly as two separate charges, but I’m sure the kaiser Karl Lagerfeld will be able to get away with it.

It’s cases like this that make fashion law so much trickier than most other intellectual property and trademark lawsuits. The only thing fashion attorneys have to go off of is prior cases. Then again, this is the Haus of Chanel we’re talking about here. Lots of clothing and accessories can be seen as inspired by or imitating the brand that basically defines classic. Yet as far as I can tell, it looks like Chanel’s got this lawsuit in the (2.55 chain strap) bag.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Chanel Sue For Stealing Its Style of Doing Business? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, Saks Fifth Avenue took a page from the book of fellow upscale department store Barneys New York and attempted to justify its discriminative policies. But instead of partaking in racist actions against customers, Saks is discriminating against a transgender employee.

Former employee Leyth O. Jamal filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a Texas Saks, claiming she was fired for being transgender. So instead of owning up to its mistakes and offering an apology, Saks tried to find a loophole to justify its actions. The company claimed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include trans* people. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has concluded that Title VII could qualify for discrimination “based on sex” in the past. And if that’s not convincing enough for you, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have also ruled that Title VII includes people of any trans* identity.

While these laws should definitely be properly amended to explicitly mention people on the trans* spectrum, that doesn’t get Saks off the hook. The company also insisted on using male pronouns to identify Jamal throughout its filings, even adding a “[sic]” every time it quoted Jamal referring to herself as female. Just as Leelah Alcorn’s parents continued to refer to her as male in their statements, referring to a person by anything other that the gender that he or she has chosen is ignorant and just plain disrespectful.

It is absolutely unacceptable for Saks to try to get away with such putrid behavior when the fashion industry is peppered with people who identify all across the LGBTQ spectrum. It shouldn’t be okay In any industry to mistreat trans* people, but it breaks my heart to hear that this is still happening in the progressive industry that I love. Both Saks and the government need to update their perspectives and become more inclusive of both trans* and LGBTQ people, so no one has to fall victim to discrimination, self-harm, and violence like Jamal, Alcorn, and Kimy Hartman all did.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saks Defends Discrimination Against Transgender Employee appeared first on Law Street.

You may have been following along with fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek’s Dumbest Laws series, as she goes state by state revealing the most random and outdated laws throughout the country. But this week, I want to tell you about a brand new dumb law that was proposed in Oklahoma this week, banning people from wearing hoodies. Anyone wearing a hood for the purposes of “hiding one’s identity” could be fined $500.

The Sooner State actually once held a similar law intending to stop the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1920s. Though this time I think the law may have more racist motives. With all the recent incidents of police brutality and subsequent protests, I can’t help but remember Trayvon Martin, who was killed by a police officer in 2012 while wearing a hoodie.

Barring dress codes for certain buildings and occasions, our First Amendment rights include freedom of expression and that includes one’s manner of dress. I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be hit with a $500 fine just for wearing a jacket with a hood on a rainy or snowy day.

Senator Don Barrington insists that the reason behind such a law is to prevent people from getting away with crimes while concealing their identities. The law would also exempt those wearing a hood for religious, safety, or medical purposes as well as for Halloween costumes. So basically, the only day you can really get away with a crime is on Halloween. But how would law enforcement officers know if a person is wearing a hood for religious or medical reasons? Would they have to carry around special ID? Don’t police have anything better to do than to go around interrogating every single person wearing a hood in the state of Oklahoma?

So Oklahoma, get ready to say goodbye to one of your favorite closet staples. (Whether you’re allowed to wear hooded jackets as long as the hood is off of your head, I’m not sure.) If you don’t like being out in the cold/rain/snow with your head unprotected, I guess you could always wear a hat?

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumb Laws Fashion Edition: Hide Your Hoodies appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I told you about the $22 million counterfeit operation busted in Queens. So now you might be asking yourself: If getting your “designer” handbags from Canal street is such a big no-no then where should I get my holiday gifts at a reasonable price? Never fear, it’s almost 2015 and there is now a plethora of consignment sites to get your second-hand designer goods. But as great as sites like Ebay, Amazon, and the new Alibaba are, sometimes sellers aren’t always honest when they claim their items are authentic. So to make sure that you don’t get duped (like my poor brother did when he ordered those fake Nikes from China) I’ve put together a handy guide on how to spot a fake. Whether you’re giving or getting one this season, here’s all you need to know about how to properly authenticate a designer handbag.

Chanel

Remember when I told you that I’ve had family members gift me fake bags in the past? When I was in high school, my aunt gave me a Chanel Grand Shopping Tote. I thought it was cool until I found some irregular stitching and a defect in the “leather.” However, there are a few other tell-tale signs aside from the obvious ones. When it comes to the flap bag, the quilting should properly line up when the bag is closed. The biggest giveaway can also be simply the leather itself; the lambskin should feel buttery smooth and not waxy. Also, every bag made after 1985 should have a label with a specific serial number inside.

Hermès

The most coveted bag in fashion history, people will do anything to get their hands on an Hermès Birkin bag. With a retail price of up to $150,000, the Birkin bag has a high resale rate, so it only follows that there are a lot of fakes floating around out there too. The easiest thing to look for is the bag’s lock spindle, as it should turn around smoothly, and should not be bumpy or grainy. The logo should also read Hermès-Paris with a dash, as opposed to an underscore. In the video below, Tammy Flehr-Gates from Michael’s consignment shop on the Upper East Side gives more tips on how to spot a fake Birkin.

Louis Vuitton

For any Vuitton bag, I reiterate the importance of checking that the leather is dry because if it’s waxy, sorry, but it’s probably not even leather to begin with. More specifically, the Neverfull’s strap should be exactly 3/8″ in width. Any larger is a sign that the bag is made of poor material, so it needs a thick strap to withstand any weight. Vuitton is also famous for its various collaborations, like with Japanese artist Takashi Murakami. The infamous multi-colored Speedy features exactly 33 colors, so any less and it’s cheap, lazy imitation. The cherry blossom Speedy also has a sneaky feature that an amateur counterfeiter would never know about; the inside should say “Made in Japan.” Although Vuitton bags are typically made in France, this particular collaboration was made in Japan. If it says “Made in France” on a cherry blossom Speedy, it probably wasn’t made there, or even in Japan for that matter.

Balenciaga

My personal favorite, the City Bag, is pretty easy to authenticate. Since it features so much metal hardware, the first thing you should check for is if they’re heavy and not hollow-feeling. The O-rings on all the zipper pulls will also be soldered closed. Rivets have two rectangular notches in them and the straps should be smooth with absolutely no bumps. Also you won’t ever find your average YKK zipper on a Balenciaga, as they only use Lampo zippers on their bags.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Holiday Gift Guide: How to Authenticate a Designer Handbag appeared first on Law Street.

Ah Canal Street; one of the few places in New York where you can score “designer” bags, gold chains, and a bong all for under $1,000. Even this future Intellectual Property lawyer has owned her fair share of counterfeit handbags from the Chinatown locale. But as a tween who just wanted a fake Louis or Chanel like everyone in my middle school, it never really made sense to me how my relatives would get their hands on them. I heard stories about being taken “behind the scenes” to the warehouses where the better stash of goods is kept. I heard about the cops coming to bust these vendors for selling without a permit. But none of these stories ever answered the real question I always had: how do these vendors throughout the city persist when everyone knows (including cops standing nearby) that they either do not have a proper permit, are selling counterfeit goods, or both?

On Tuesday, the NYPD and U.S. Homeland Security officials raided a storage unit in Queens full of about $22 million worth of counterfeit goods. The raid followed a seven-month investigation and resulted in seven arrests. This kind of takeover is what police call an “Operation Treasure Hunt” and took about 30 minutes to execute. I highly suggest clicking over to WWD to view pictures of the facility and all the goods it contained, because it’s truly astounding. From fake Gucci and Chanel handbags to Beats headphones and fake Uggs, these guys had it all. Rarely do you ever get to see a successful takedown of Canal Street vendors like this. But why is that? Why can’t the police just approach these guys who are selling on the street?

As a kid, my mom tried to relieve my conscience claiming that my LV-monogramed bag was probably real but was just stolen. But does that make it any more ethical? In hindsight, it kind of made it a lot worse; however, regardless of whether these goods are stolen or just really good knockoffs, any Canal Street vendor or distributor is guilty of at least one of these things.

One reason these vendors may get off the hook is that they are merely a third party selling the goods, not making them. Also, I doubt most NYPD even know about the designers these bags are trying to imitate, nevermind the standards for what counts as a knockoff and what does not. The only way the police can shut down these vendors is by asking if they have proper permits, and if they do there’s nothing they can do about it.

The case with the storage unit in Queens required a lengthy investigation so that the police could acquire enough evidence to warrant a search. Also it’s a much more effective tactic to take down the counterfeit industry by heading straight to the source, as opposed to approaching every single business on Canal Street.

Maybe it’s time to start training the NYPD to have a more keen eye for spotting counterfeit goods. Every year counterfeit products can cost the global economy up to $250 billion. Manhattan is not the crime-ridden place that it once was, so a lot of police officers are often seen just standing around offering surveillance. And while counterterrorism should definitely  be a primary concern in this day and age, that doesn’t mean police can’t multitask and try to stop this form of economic terrorism too.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Busts $22 Million Counterfeit Goods Operation appeared first on Law Street.

As both a holiday shopper and retail-worker veteran, I’ve experienced Black Friday from inside and out. Despite the fact that I’m not really an active bargain-hunter (I prefer to be surprised by deals as I’m randomly browsing), it’s a tradition for me to visit my local mall every year, whether I’m working in a store or shopping myself. This year I’ll be running around the Banana Republic store at The Mall at Short Hills, one of the most sophisticated malls in the country (but trust me, even there people can behave a little primitively for a good deal, especially on Black Friday). So with the big day just a week away, I’d like to share some tips on surviving the holiday without running into any legal troubles. Happy shopping!

1. Don’t Trample and/or Kill Retail Workers

Remember back in 2008 when a Walmart employee died upon opening the doors for anxious shoppers? There have apparently been seven Black Friday-related deaths and 90 injuries since 2006. While Walmart should be held somewhat accountable, given the unfair ways it treats its employees, shoppers also need to calm down. I know heavy advertising and tempting deals can certainly feed into the hype and excitement of getting to be the first one in the store, but come on guys, you’re supposed to show gratitude on Thanksgiving. Don’t be so greedy.

2. Don’t Show Up Until Thanksgiving is Officially Over

With more and more stores opening on Thanksgiving Day to accommodate shoppers who choose to spend their holiday waiting in line instead of being with their families, retail workers end up missing out on spending the holiday with their families too. Lucky magazine compiled a list of its favorite stores that will not be open on Thanksgiving. Support them! I know being around family can be stressful, but some people actually like their families. So out of respect for retail workers, spend the day enjoying your family’s company at home–and then maybe peace out early saying you have to rest up for the next day. (Kidding! Okay, well, kind of.)

3. Please, For the Love of God, Try to Keep the Stores Neat

As a visual specialist, nothing angers me more than setting up a display only for a customer to dismantle it the second I turn around. You know what’s part of a sales associate’s job description? Finding the right size for customers. So when in doubt just ask, because it’s a lot easier for the person who folded the pile to begin with to pull a size, than for a customer who may already have their hands full of other items. That said…

4. …Please Be Patient with Sales Associates and Any Other Store/Mall Employees

Believe it or not we actually want to help you. It makes us happy and will make you happy. Trust me. Personally I am a very independent shopper. I don’t really like talking to people when I shop; I rarely even bring friends with me. But sometimes a manager or associate whose job it is to know all about the product may be able to offer something that you never would have known if you hadn’t given them your time of day. Did you know those shirts are non-iron? Those jeans come in three other washes. That dress would look great with these shoes. If you spend over $100 dollars today you get a free gift with purchase. I swear we’re not JUST trying to make a sale (most stores don’t even pay commission anymore), we just really like to help and offer our opinions, like we would for a friend.

But at the same time, try not to be too demanding of employees. Sometimes an associate, or even a manager may not know something about a product, because they are not the ones who produce the item. If you have any questions that store employees are not sure about, check out the store’s website or call its corporate headquarters. Customer service extends well beyond a company’s brick-and-morter locations.

5. Don’t Forget to Give!

Part of the reason I’ve loved working for Gap Inc. over the last three years is that they always give back. Every holiday season, stores “Adopt a Family” so employees can buy gifts for a family in need. And with around 100 employees per store, that’s a lot of potential to give. My store collects non-perishable foods from employees, as well. But there are still opportunities for customers to give too. Saks Fifth Avenue has had a partnership with St. Jude’s since 2006 and they host a lot of auctions and benefits, especially around the holidays. And of course there’s Macy’s famous Believe campaign with Make A Wish Foundation where for every letter to Santa put in their mailbox, they’ll donate one dollar. Also, don’t just ignore that Santa standing out in the cold collecting money for the Salvation Army. I usually just drop my change from Starbucks in there because it’s already in my hand anyway.

Have fun and happy holidays!

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Foolproof Black Friday Guide, Fashion Law Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another frenzy-inducing H&M designer collaboration. Last week, the long anticipated Alexander Wang x H&M collection hit stores and online. Shoppers lined up nearly 24 hours beforehand, merchandise was immediately posted on Ebay–you know, the usual.

But amid all the excitement for the coveted sportswear with the word “Wang” emblazoned across the chest, a controversial video was released, as well. German website Dandy Diary created what it called a “promotional video” in which they went to India to see how the collection was made. In the video, child laborers are sewing Alexander Wang x H&M logos onto apparel. Even though the video is meant to be an “art piece” it still raises a lot of questions considering the fact that both Wang and H&M have been accused of using sweatshop labor in the past.

Back in 2012, Wang settled a lawsuit filed by 30 workers who claimed they were forced to work in poor conditions for 16 hours at a time without breaks. Never mind the countless child labor accusations that Swedish fast fashion retailer H&M has received over the years.

H&M has since responded claiming that the collection was not made in Indian factories but rather in China, Turkey, and Italy, and that the company does not support child labor; however, we still don’t know whether or not this is exactly true. Just because this video is supposed to be an “art piece” doesn’t mean that we should laugh it off and move on. Despite the fact that thousands of people died last year alone when the Rana Plaza factory collapsed, Bangladeshi factories still continue to breed poor working conditions. Obviously major retailers such as H&M are not pulling through on making sure that such a tragedy never happens again. While it may be difficult for both the companies and any U.S. law enforcement to keep track of what’s happening overseas, these retailers need to start taking responsibility for any third-party labor that they employ. Perhaps they could send corporate employees to serve as a liaison between the two.

It’s also worth noting the hype surrounding these coveted limited edition collaborations. Twenty-four hours after the collection was released, only some of the items were sold out online (though whether a full size range was available, I’m not sure). Even the items posted on Ebay were not extraordinarily marked up. If anything, it’s more about being the first one to get your hands on the collections first; kind of like when people wait in line for the new iPhone when they could just as easily get it shipped to their house that day.

What better way to further feed into the hype than to release a controversial video shining a spotlight on something that’s been speculated about in the past? Such a video serves as a way to get both Wang’s and H&M’s names in people’s mouths, ensuring sales not only for this current capsule collection, but for any of either label’s future business as well.

Political correctness be damned, apparently.

Ed. Note: The original version of this article included an embed of Dandy Diary’s blog, which has since been removed by the creator. Read a Dandy Diary’s comment on the video’s removal here.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Ignore the Alexander Wang x H&M Child Labor Video appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably gathered how important I think it is for a person of power to present themselves as far as their sartorial choices go; however, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the inherent double standard in society’s speculation over what women in power wear. From first ladies to political candidates, the public loves to ask a woman about what she wears and why she wears it. In fact, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself who once shot down an interviewer’s inquiry about what designers she likes to wear with the now-famous retort, “Would you ever ask a man that question?” Personally my answer would be yes, but I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority here.

The recently-opened exhibit at the Design Museum in London titled “Women Fashion Power” says a lot about how society tends to care more about how female politicians dress than it does about males. While sometimes there’s a correlation between a politician’s confidence and his appearance — a la Obama’s tan suit — clothes shouldn’t affect voters’ opinions on how well a person can lead, especially women.

While men may appear to have fewer options outside of the accepted black suit as formal and professional attire, tailoring is always key. If his jacket is too big, then the suit will end up wearing him as opposed to the other way around. People don’t want to vote for a walking suit, they want to vote for a powerful and trustworthy man — or woman.

“We want you to see firsthand that a solid education and the willingness to work hard is really at the core of what it’s going to take to achieve your goals: education and hard work.” —The First Lady to #FashionEdu Thank you to all the leaders in the fashion industry who encouraged the students at today’s Fashion Education Workshop to #ReachHigher in their education.

A photo posted by First Lady Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) on Oct 10, 2014 at 6:07pm PDT

Yet from Wendy Davis’ famous sneaker-and-skirt-suit ensemble to Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits, voters love to refer to a woman of power by her clothing choices. First Ladies like Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy are constantly scrutinized, or lauded, for what they wear to every single appearance they make. The press couldn’t stop talking about the fact that Mrs. Obama finally wore American couturier Oscar de la Renta to her fashion education panel just days before the designer’s passing. The first lady has expressed her disinterest in fashion in the past, so why is she trying to fit into the fashion crowd now? Is this the only way for her to solidify her position of power? The exhibit in London even starts with fashions of ancient Egyptian leaders like queen Hatshepsut, but surely ancient male leaders dressed just as ornately. Yet we only ever talk about King Tut’s naked corpse.

Clothes definitely play an important role in any public figure’s reputation. But why does the public care so much more about what a “woman of power” wears than they do about the president’s and other male politicians’ clothes? All I know is that when I go to the ballot box next Tuesday, any women I happen to vote for will be because I trust in their ability to lead based on their policies and past actions. The fact that they dress cute is merely an added bonus.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Fashion Such an Important Issue for Women in Power? appeared first on Law Street.

A little over a year ago, my parents were driving me into the city one night because I didn’t feel like taking the train to meet some friends. My then 12-year-old brother said he would come on one condition: that we stop at a shoe store at 812 Broadway. As someone who lived in the city for two years, the address alone meant nothing to me until I looked up the cross streets. The store turned out to be just south of Union Square about a block from the Strand bookstore. I wondered why I never noticed it during my frequent trips to the area.

We get to the storefront, which completely lacked any signage and had two large black-tinted glass doors. An associate stood outside like he was a bouncer guarding a hot new club. Inside, the store was crowded with suburban tween boys and their parents. Rows and rows of sneakers (many of them still wrapped in plastic) lined the two exposed-brick walls. If you want to try on a sneaker you have to go up to a counter to order them and then wait until they call your name.

My brother is a self-professed “Sneakerhead.” I suppose it’s similar to how I lust for designer shoes, but as much as I try to understand his fixation, I can’t really get past the idea of people paying hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars for such ugly shoes. At Flight Club, which initially started as a consignment store, there is a special display case featuring special “vintage” sneakers inspired by Back to the Future and Space Jam. On average, these obnoxious shoes go for well over $1,000. Luckily my brother chose a practical pair of white Air Jordan “Fire Red” 5’s. My parents paid $160 for those that night, now according to sneaker appraisal site Campless, those shoes can be sold at a 28 percent markup.

Meta pictures of my brother taking a picture of his sneaker collection #idontgetit #iwouldiftheywerePrada

A photo posted by Katherine F (@kafernn) on Dec 12, 2013 at 12:56pm PST

From that trip spawned an obsession. My brother simply had to have the latest and greatest sneaker. My mother, however, was not very open to the idea of buying (potentially used) sneakers on Ebay, despite his insistence that they were no longer available anywhere else. “How can that be when the shoe was just released today?” my mother and I would wonder. I decided to do some further investigating.

It turns out that when it comes to Nikes limited edition sneakers — Air Jordans and Lebrons — the black market is the main market. Basically, getting your hands on a pair of these sneakers is like trying to get tickets to a Taylor Swift concert; they sell out the second they become available, so you have to buy them from a third party at a 200 percent markup. Unlike designer apparel or even luxury cars, Nikes can increase in value after you buy them at retail price. Apparently there are “Sneakerheads” who buy up all of the inventory upon initial release and resell them for a living, some of which even include Footlocker employees. Last year, Nike resellers collectively made about $230 million in profits. That’s $230 million that Nike is missing out on. So wouldn’t it be a smarter business strategy to mass-produce them?

When I asked my brother why he thinks this is the case he simply shrugged and said, “It’s ’cause it’s all hype” and to a certain extent he’s right. We all know the power of celebrity collaborations. There have been riots over the coveted shoes since the late eighties. High schools even had to ban the shoes from their dress codes because students were attacking each other in an attempt to steal their shoes.

About ten years ago you could walk into the store a couple of weeks after the latest pair of Jordans were released and buy them off the shelf. It wasn’t until the onset of sites like Ebay, Craiglist, Amazon, and now social media like Instagram and Twitter, that a whole new market was born. Unfortunately, not only do third party sites cheat Nike out of profits but they can also cheat consumers. Young kids, including my brother and his friends, order these sneakers from as far as Hong Kong only to be sent cheap knockoffs instead (there’s even a whole other market for good replicas). One time my brother ordered a pair of Foamposite One Weathermans on the up-and-coming site Alibaba and was sent shoes that were so fake that no human foot could ever fit inside of them, much less walk in them.

The more offending members of his collection, which thank God he never wears. Some of these are older than he is. Courtesy of Katherine Fabian.

Another reason Air Jordans sell better at certain times than others is that sales are often governed by the trajectory of Michael Jordan’s career. For example, now that he’s retired, kids like my brother (who weren’t even born yet when he originally played for the Chicago Bulls) want to get their hands on shoes with the name of a now legendary basketball player. Now that I think about it, Jordan has “retired” so many times over the years that I think he was doing it on purpose to steer sales of his shoes. I mean, why would he bother playing all those consecutive years when he had all that shoe money to sit on?

Nike also further feeds the hype over its Air Jordans by re-releasing certain versions over the years. However, they also ultimately have the power to stop the black market from dominating the industry. If Apple limits the amount of new iPhones one can buy upon its release, why can’t Nike do the same? I have a feeling that the company enjoys all the controversy, including the riots, that come along with selling its sneakers in “limited” quantities. Interestingly enough, Ebay CEO John Donahue just joined Nike’s board last June. When it comes down to it, that $230 million hardly makes a difference in light of the $27.8 billion Nike’s made within the last year. Ultimately, only about four percent of Air Jordan’s are resold in the first place.

Frankly, I wish they wouldn’t sell some of those shoes at all because they’re so damn ugly. The eighties called, they want their sneakers back.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Joseph Quicho via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Air Jordans and “Sneakerheads” Shifted the Market for Nike appeared first on Law Street.

A lot has happened in the world of fashion lawsuits and controversial apparel lately. So this week I thought I’d do a roundup of the brands that have come under fire, or even started the fire, over the past few weeks.

H&M Accused of Producing a Kurdish Jumpsuit

H&M have been inspired by the Kurdish female fighters. pic.twitter.com/3QzC7nQgsA

— Wasan Shoresh (@K4life_) October 5, 2014

Last week people seemed to get all up in a tizzy about a green khaki jumpsuit featured in H&M’s latest Fall campaign. Apparently the jumpsuit appeared to be a little too similar to the ones female Kurdish soldiers wear in the Middle East to defend against ISIS. But if you ask me, such a military-inspired jumpsuit has become pretty ubiquitous in almost any culture. H&M also released the jumpsuit in other colors besides the allegedly offensive green, as well as a denim version. In this case, I think consumers have once again read a little too much into the motive behind the garment. While we should definitely be aware of both the women and men fighting for their rights in the Middle East right now, in this case any similarities between H&M’s version of the jumpsuit and the ones Kurdish soldiers wear are merely coincidental.

Converse Sues to Protect Its Classic Shoe

The only thing more prevalent than the classic Chuck Taylor All Stars are the various knockoff versions of it and Converse has finally decided to put its foot down (pun unintended). Converse is accusing 31 companies, including Walmart, Kmart, and Skechers, of trademark infringement for copying elements like the black stripe along the sole and the rubber toe cap. On Tuesday the company filed 22 separate lawsuits in United States District Court in Brooklyn. As much as fake Chuck Taylors annoy me, I can’t help but wonder what took Converse so long to finally take action. Is it possibly too late? I guess we’ll have to just wait and see if they can stomp out their competition (okay, the pun was intended that time).

Bottega Veneta Trademarks a Knot (or at least is trying to)

Courtesy of Jerine Lay via Flickr.

This one is not really as crazy as the others, but I still thought it was interesting. Bottega Veneta is trying to trademark the metal knot it uses on its handbags, particularly as the clasp for its clutches. Apparently that’s easier said than done. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices (USPTO) rejected Bottega’s claim, saying that it was not distinctive enough. The designer then had to re-present its case citing the amount of sales they have made and how notorious they are for this particular “configuration” based on its ads. The company also compared its knot to the Chanel double C’s, the Tory Burch cross, and the Ferragamo bow.  Apparently that still wasn’t enough to convince USPTO, but the design house still won’t take no for answer and wants to reapply. As important as it is for designers to protect “trademark” elements, I hope that Bottega doesn’t get too tied up in this application process. (Okay that was the last one I swear!)

Chanel Sues Over Ghostbusters Sweatshirt

Parody T-shirt brand What About Yves has been creating a stir since releasing apparel with the message “Ain’t Laurent Without Yves,” regarding the haus’s name change to Saint Laurent Paris, a couple of years ago. For the most part the targeted designers let the streetwear brand be, but Chanel is not too happy about its use of the company’s logo. Just in time for Halloween, What About Yves released a Sweatshirt with the classic double C logo with the Ghostbusters ghost in between. I’m not sure if this is just supposed to be a festive clothing item, but if there is some kind of joke behind it I don’t get it. But yet again, why has Chanel decided to come after someone using its logo now? I’m not sure. Maybe they just decided that since the tacky clothier Jeanine Heller has finally targeted them that it’s their opportunity to take the designer-offending brand down. I know I sure wouldn’t mind if they did.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Week in Fashion Law: Kurdish Jumpsuits and Ghostbusters appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Parisian fashion house Maison Martin Margiela announced that industry pariah John Galliano would take over as its new creative director. The former creative director of Dior has been attempting to make a comeback since he was caught on film going on an anti-Semitic rant back in 2011. Subsequently, Galliano was dismissed from his positions at both Dior and his own namesake line. But now that he’s back in the couture game, everyone can’t help but ask the age-old question: is it possible to separate art from the artist?

One of the most ubiquitous examples of a controversial man behind beautiful works is Woody Allen. There’s no arguing the classic status of Allen’s films but — especially recently when Dylan Farrow finally spoke out about her estranged father molesting her — people sometimes have trouble appreciating them knowing that a man with a weird fetish for underaged girls is the brain behind the masterpiece. That said, will the industry be able to forget, but maybe not necessarily forgive, Galliano’s transgressions come next couture season?

Galliano is hardly the only controversial figure in the industry. Fellow couturier Karl Lagerfeld is notorious for his sexist actions from his recent faux-feminist show to comments he’s made about women’s bodies like the singer Adele. But not everyone can get away with such aloof behavior. Activewear brand Lululemon’s CEO Chip Wilson resigned shortly after coming under fire for a comment he made about some women being too fat to properly fit into his leggings, and let’s not forget about American Apparel founder Dov Charney finally getting his just deserts for sexually harassing employees.

However, in the case of Galliano and Lagerfeld, as unacceptable as their behavior is they never physically hurt anyone like alleged sexual offenders Dov Charney and Woody Allen. So there aren’t necessarily any laws against such bigoted actions.

Ultimately, artistic minds like Galliano’s and Lagerfeld’s are very different from the average person’s in that they may not always be aware of the social ramifications of their actions. I’m not trying to excuse their behavior by any means. But whenever I hear Lagerfeld say ridiculous things about women I can’t help but roll my eyes and chuckle a little, because I know he has absolutely no perception of the real world. Galliano also allegedly blamed his abuse of alcoholism and drug abuse (which definitely fueled his inappropriate rants) on the pressures of running two couture houses. These artists tend to live in their own bubbles, only interacting with a select few people who let them get away with their odd behavior, because they are the genius masterminds who pay their paychecks. Quirky artists have the potential to offer so much joy in our lives, but sometimes you may have to look past their odd behavior and just appreciate their work for what it is.

Since getting the boot from the industry, Galliano has attempted to make his way back in. He tried a residency at Oscar de la Renta and a guest professorship at Parsons the New School for Design, but all have fallen through because the public was still not ready to forgive him. So is the industry ready for Galliano to return to the couture scene? Only time will tell.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Fashion Industry Ready to Forgive Anti-Semite John Galliano? appeared first on Law Street.

As a “melting pot,” Americans observe and consume different aspects of various cultures every day. In Western culture, it has become the norm to borrow foods, traditions, and clothing from other racial and ethnic groups as we please. But when exactly does taking inspiration from other cultures’ ways of dressing cross the line into cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation by definition is “the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another.” From Pharell’s Elle UK cover, to Katy Perry’s music videos, the fashion and entertainment industries always seem to cause an uproar every time someone wears a Native American headdress or Indian bindi. But is it possible to ever rock a turban or fringe without offending anyone?

The answer to that question is complicated, especially when it comes to those cultures that have been historically repressed by others. Native Americans seem to be the biggest issue with the ubiquitous use of headdresses everywhere from the runway to music festivals like Coachella. There’s no doubt that white people have done horrible things throughout history to exploit Native Americans, so I understand why they would be terribly offended when they see people from outside of their culture wearing full-on headdresses.

However, there are some styles that have become so ingrained into the Western way of dress that people may wear them without even realizing that they might be offending someone. Moccasins, for example, have become a staple shoe option in the West. And why wouldn’t they? They’re comfortable and go with almost anything. And what about driving moccasins? Should we stop using such a practical innovation in footwear just because our forefathers stole the idea hundreds of years ago?

So what determines what styles belong to a certain culture anyway? One culture that seems to have a lot of gray areas is that of African Americans. One of the most sensitive areas in African American culture is the representation of their hair. And just because a person is a minority doesn’t mean that they are free to wear whatever they want without considering other subcultures. Dreadlocks, for example, have religious associations that might make it inappropriate for some African Americans to wear. 

African Americans in general have taken on certain kinds hairstyles to be considered as their own, such as cornrows and baby hairs. As a white Hispanic girl with curly hair, sometimes I find it difficult to tell if I’m “allowed” to get in on the natural hair movement that many mixed-race women and women of color have been embracing lately. Some mixed-raced Latinas may be able to get away with sporting cornrows, but as someone who appears to be a white woman of Anglo-Saxon descent it’s difficult to see where I fall. Am I supposed to walk around with a sign that says “I am Cuban-American. My ancestors did not enslave your ancestors”?

Granted there are times when celebrities completely disregard a culture’s background and simply wear certain styles because they think it’s cool or sexy. Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Rihanna come tend to come to mind as examples. Perry’s “Dark Horse” video is just a bunch of random cultural messages slapped together without even trying to make a statement or anything of artistic substance.

A lyric in Lady Gaga’s song “Aura” reads verbatim “she wear burqa for fashion.” So not only is she trying to make light of a garment that women are forced to wear in some parts of the Middle East, she uses incorrect grammar to imitate a foreign accent. Not cool.

Yeah…not really sure what’s going on here.

And let’s not forget the time Rihanna came under fire for trying to look sexy in traditional clothing in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi mosque asks Rihanna to leave after photo shoot clashed with “sacredness.” http://t.co/1jgq2Duh5q pic.twitter.com/SjjrIx7Pxi

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) October 22, 2013

While I’m not sure if we can always dress without appropriating any cultures whatsoever, there are few instances where it is a big no-no. With Halloween coming up, try to be conscious about what kind of costumes you choose to wear. For example the sexy version of any kind of ethnic-wear is probably not the most politically correct thing to wear. Most importantly, this holiday should be about having fun, so think about how un-fun it would be to feel like your own cultural identity is under attack.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Beckett via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Cultural Appropriation in Fashion Ever Okay? appeared first on Law Street.

So this week in controversial t-shirt news, a market in the Philippines received a bit of backlash via Twitter over a top encouraging rape culture. Supermall, the major department store chain with several locations throughout the Philippines and China, promoted the offending item featuring the message “It’s not rape, it’s a snuggle with a struggle.”

In this case, I can’t really give Supermalls the benefit of the doubt. What’s even more bizarre about the product is that it was apparently featured in the little boys section of the store because you might as well get them to start disrespecting women as early as possible. There’s no way this could have been an oversight. Although I don’t know how aware Asian culture is regarding the topic of rape, the only excuse that I could begin to provide for Supermalls is that perhaps something got lost in translation. The word “rape” may not translate the same from Tagalog or Mandarin but I can’t see how “struggle” could mean anything other than something that implies difficulty, which is not a word that anyone would want to use to describe sexual encounters.

‘It’s not rape – it’s a snuggle with a struggle’: Store withdraws T-shirt after complaints http://t.co/jCnIn3jZt3 pic.twitter.com/gLMiAepsmI

— Daily Mirror (@DailyMirror) September 24, 2014

In response to all the Twitter backlash, Supermalls released the following statement:

Update on t-shirt statement. pic.twitter.com/cDTPamPC1e

— SM Supermalls (@smsupermalls) September 23, 2014

Why thank you, Supermalls as long as you’re sorry it makes it okay right?

What’s even more interesting is that Supermalls’ Twitter banner features a picture of a happy Filipino family with the statement “Everything’s Here for the Love of Lolo (Grandpa) and Lola (Grandma).” Because I’m sure wearing a shirt that promotes rape culture would make Lolo and Lola extremely proud.

Supermalls also apparently has its own foundation in which they “contribute to the welfare and well being of various communities,” according to its website.

While I’m not sure exactly how such a disturbing t-shirt came to be, the issue behind it only goes to further prove that many countries, including the United States, have a long way to go to erase the mindset of rape culture. The U.S. could learn from this incident in the Philippines and work toward spreading awareness about rape prevention while enacting laws that prevent such vile messages from being featured on advertisements and products.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial T-Shirt News: Store Sells Shirt Downplaying Rape appeared first on Law Street.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Neff Conner via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen appeared first on Law Street.

As New York Fashion Week draws to a close and all of the celebrities, bloggers, and street style photographers clear from Lincoln Center, it appears that there is the same unsolved issue every season: where is the diversity on the runway?

Surely, we have seen quite a few additions of minority and even plus-size models since the earlier years of fashion week, but we still have a long way to go. And although the runways seem to be slowly but surely diversifying, there’s no excuse why particularly the one fashion week that takes place stateside is so slow to change. They may be able to get away with it in Europe, but there are plenty of African American girls for New York designers and agencies to chose from.

In the Fall/Winter ’14 shows last February, 78 percent of runway models were white, a slight decrease from the previous season’s 79 percent. Meanwhile, there are several famous supermodels who are minorities, like Brazilian Gisele Bundchen, Somali-born Iman, and Naomi Campbell who is black and British. So what gives? Why do designers insist on maintaining such whitewashed runways?

One possible reason is that, as with racism in most cases, it is simply easy for designers to fall into the same trap of maintaining the status quo of what ‘looks good.’ While the point of fashion shows is to display designs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that minority models can’t walk the runway without looking “too exotic” and detracting from the clothes they are wearing. Designers and casting directors need to start making a conscious effort to chose models of varying races. After all, if uniformity is still a concern, that is what hair and makeup are for. Remember last season when Kendall Jenner hid among the models at Marc Jacobs and no one even recognized her because her eyebrows were bleached?

Another reason for the lack of diversity on the runway could be that there are not a lot of minority models attending castings in the first place. If that is true, then the fault would lie with the modeling agencies as opposed to the designers. According to the Wilhelmina Models site, 13 out of 51 of the models signed with them appear to be women of color, about 25 percent. That’s an under-whelmingly low proportion of minority models. So why aren’t model scouts finding more women of color?

"Be happy, be yourself" love Diane #NYFW #DVFW pic.twitter.com/ua2PP5xIZc

— DVF (@DVF) September 7, 2014

The notion that only pale and blonde women can be beautiful is apparently still very ingrained in the fashion industry. Despite the fact that the number of white models is slowly decreasing each season, there is still a lot that needs to be done in order to erase this mentality. While I don’t think using affirmative action or establishing a certain quota for the number of white models allowed in one show would work, perhaps the CFDA could work to change this practice.

Several companies are already starting to promote the idea of using normal-sized girls as models, so why not start a campaign encouraging diversity? The president of the CFDA herself, Diane von Furstenberg, had about a third of her models as women of color in her show on Sunday, so I hardly think she would be opposed to promoting diversity in fashion. Von Furstenberg should use her power to eradicate the racist mindset in fashion and get more women of color on the runways.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Fashion Week Still Doesn’t Promote Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the unusual-colored suit President Obama wore to a press conference last week. Everyone seemed to have something to say about it. But as unflattering as the suit appeared, I think people are failing to see the real issue at hand, which the suit even helped to illustrate: our president has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the current issues at hand in foreign policy.

By wearing this particular tan suit, the president basically let the country know that he has simply given up. The suit washed out his complexion just like Russia and ISIS have washed him out, so to speak. When asked about his plans for Iraq, he merely replied, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Throughout his statement, despite being asked directly what his plans are, Obama seems to beat the bush giving vague answers about a plan that he has to make in the future. While it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to give out any information that’s not yet necessarily set in stone, foreign conflicts such as the ones at hand require crucial timing. If he waits too long to make a plan it may be too late, potentially costing a significant number of lives.

This is hardly the first time that the president has caused controversy with his sartorial choices. From his very first days in office, the public was up in arms over his decision to bare his shirt sleeves in the oval office. While he may have wanted to be the cool and casual president at the beginning of his presidency, the tan suit seemed to have gone a little too far. They say clothes make the man, and in this case the clothes made the man look defeated.

Granted, I would love to give the president props for straying away from the standard black suits politicians typically wear, after all it is the year 2014. However, there is a time and place for everything. A conference regarding the current state of war in Iraq and serious foreign threats our country faces from Russia is hardly the time to take a new fashion risk. Perhaps the president should’ve saved the khaki suit for a stroll in the Hamptons over the holiday weekend.

In the grand scope of things, it really doesn’t matter what the president is wearing, but rather the message he has to deliver to our country. The media’s reaction to his suit was certainly blown out of proportion, but I still think it is interesting how the suit’s color seemed to coincide with the overall tone of the president’s statement. There’s certainly no law dictating that the president must exclusively wear black suits, but if there were would the message have been received by the public in the same way? Obama has made several poor decisions throughout his presidency and that morning, his poor sense of judgement seemed to carry through to his wardrobe choices, as well.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Tan Suit Proves He Has Given Up appeared first on Law Street.

Along with the two consecutive award shows this week came two red carpets. Each carpet brought a lot of interesting fashion choices, from Katy Perry’s tribute to Britney Spears to Kim Kardashian’s backwards looking dress, both at Sunday night’s MTV Video Music Awards. The one dress that people could not stop talking about, though, was Lena Dunham’s Giambattista Valli gown worn to the Emmy Awards Monday night. Regardless of whether you loved or hated the dress worn by creator and star of the HBO series Girls, it seemed to bring up an issue of intellectual property.

On Monday night, designer Christian Siriano posted a throwback photo on Instagram of one of the designs from his Spring 2010 collection. The dress he chose to post had a strikingly similar color scheme and tiered tulle skirt to the dress Dunham wore that very night. Hm, coincidence? Probably not. Nice try Christian, but it wasn’t even #ThrowbackThursday.

As much as I hate when bigger designers copy smaller ones’ designs, I don’t think Siriano really has a case here. The only thing the two dresses have in common is the fact that they have tulle skirts. The colors and tiers are far too different for there to be any issue of copyright infringement. The bodices of each dress also give off two completely different aesthetics, as Valli’s offers a menswear-meets-formalwear vibe by matching a collared shirt with a ball gown skirt, while Siriano’s features a simple strapless design.

Even if Siriano did want to get into a legal battle with his fellow designer, there are no laws protecting him. It is perfectly legal to copy a garment’s pattern, which is hardly the issue here anyway. The only way Siriano would have a case is if there was an issue of print-copyrighting and both dresses lack any kind of screen-printing to begin with. Also, Siriano would probably never stand a chance in court against Valli, as the latter is a veteran couture designer and the former is a relatively new designer who got his start through Project Runway and designs for Payless Shoes.

Then again, Siriano definitely wasn’t the only one who thought the dress looked familiar…

Lena Dunham’s #Emmy dress looks kind of familiar. @josswhedon @JewelStaite pic.twitter.com/oEkU7N59nv

— refinery29 (@Refinery29) August 26, 2014

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Lena Dunham via Twitter]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Votes Are In: Lena Dunham Wins Most Controversial Emmy Dress appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, online retailer Modcloth became the first company to take the Heroes of Advertising Pledge “to do [its] best not to change the shape, size, proportion, color and/or remove/enhance the physical features, of the people in [its] ads in post-production.” If for some reason it does alter any images on its site, Modcloth must note that the image is not “real.” The pledge was created by the Brave Girls Alliance, an organization that also proposed the Truth in Advertising Act of 2014, asking Congress to regulate the use of Photoshop in advertising.

Modcloth is notorious for offering clothing for everyone, featuring many plus-size models on its site. The Hero of Advertising Pledge is a huge step in the right direction for fashion advertising. Not only will it help to prevent weird Photoshop fails, but it could also present a more realistic image to consumers, specifically young girls whose body images could be affected by them.

The media has always been the number one scapegoat for body image issues in children and adults alike. Underweight models in advertisements have set a standard for what the consumers think they must look like in order to wear the clothes sold in stores. Companies like Modcloth are trying to break the standard by using “real people” as models. Earlier this year American Eagle Outfitters’ lingerie store, Aerie released a campaign in which all images were completely un-retouched with the slogan “The real you is sexy.”

But exactly how effective are ads with “real” models at selling clothes? While some companies may get too Photoshop-happy, a published ad shouldn’t be sloppy or it could fail to properly grab the consumer’s attention. There haven’t been any studies yet on how “real” ads influence a store’s sales, although consumers do claim they want to see more relatable-looking people in clothing ads.

Perhaps advertisers should establish a medium when it comes to Photoshopping so that models don’t end up missing limbs, but also look presentable and appropriate for the company they represent. The Hero of Advertising Pledge does allow for some use of Photoshop when it comes to a flyaway hair or concealing a tattoo, but it can be tricky to establish a limit on how much is too much Photoshop and how much is too little.

An awkwardly Photoshopped ad by Ann Taylor LOFT. LOFT justified the alteration by claiming they were trying to conceal the model’s tattoo. Courtesy of Buzzfeed.

Advertisers can only do so much when it comes to influencing consumers’ body images. Eating disorders stem from various other factors such as genetics and trauma, but can be triggered by a suggestive ad. If ads that promote rape culture are censored, it makes sense to also limit ads that could affect someone suffering from an eating disorder in the same way they could affect a victim of sexual abuse. It is tricky, however, to determine what could actually trigger consumers with eating disorders as their perception of what is “normal” is skewed.

Model casting could also be an issue when striving to create “real” ads because companies may not want to waste time and money retouching a model’s image, which is why tall and thin models are usually cast in the first place. How do companies define what is too thin? Ultimately, it is up to the company to determine what kinds of bodies they want to represent their brand. But what is going to stop them from sticking with unhealthy or underweight models? Overweight models can also be just as triggering to people with eating disorders as thin ones.

While many fashion ads may seem misleading, such a notion is technically the point of advertising to begin with. Restaurants rarely use “real” images of the food they actually serve and the same idea can apply to clothing ads. The consumer is not going to look exactly like the model does in a garment because everyone’s body is different. Also, advertisements are meant to create a somewhat idealistic image in order to grab a consumer’s attention and successfully sell a product. Adult consumers, unlike children, usually have the common sense to tell what is real and what is not.

When it comes to using people in advertisements, however, it is difficult to determine what is ethical. Photoshopping a model into oblivion is no more effective than a sloppily unedited ad. Advertisers need to establish an appropriate medium for altering images, and while Congress can provide a guide as to how much is too much, it is ultimately up to the company to decide what kind of image it wants to present.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Congress Regulate What a “Real” Ad is? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, luxury department store Barneys New York made a $525,000 settlement in response to a racial profiling investigation by the State of New York. Nineteen-year-old Queens resident Trayon Christian used his savings to purchase a Salvatore Ferragamo belt at the Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan, only to be arrested shortly after leaving. The clerk who sold him the $350 belt had allegedly called the police claiming fraud. Apparently, the company has racial profiling ingrained into its employee policy. Security guards are told to watch minority customers in the store more closely than their white customers, and clerks are to prevent making sales to minority customers in order to avoid fraud investigations. The investigation also found that Barneys must have been collaborating with the NYPD by placing undercover detectives in their store.

These days, you can’t seem to look at the news without hearing about another unarmed black kid who was “accidentally” shot by police. Racial profiling is a not only a violation of human rights, but can also result in serious consequences for the innocent minority victim.

The police told Christian that his debit card must be a fake because a black man could never afford such an expensive item. He was then held at the police station for two hours until they realized that he was innocent. Christian, who is a student at the NYC College of Technology, had saved up to buy the belt because he wanted one like the Harlem rapper Juelz Santana. Lower class consumers are just as entitled as upper class ones to use their own money to buy a designer item, right? Isn’t such a notion the mere foundation of capitalism?

A belt similar to the one Trayon Christian purchased in April 2013. Thanks NY Post.

In luxury retail stores, customers are rarely asked for identification with their credit card because it is considered rude. Part of the luxury customer experience involves being treated well, because they are spending so much money. Also, the more accommodating a salesperson is to a customer, the more money the customer may spend in the store. The main purpose of a retail store is to put the customer’s needs first, as they are “always right.”

On the other hand, stores must also protect themselves with lost prevention (LP) policies. There are plenty of telltale signs that a person may be shoplifting, but being black or Latino is not one of them. Also if a customer is suspected of shoplifting, the salesperson is expected to provide even more service to deter them from stealing, as they are still technically considered a customer if they are in the store.

When I worked as a sales associate in a luxury mall, I went through intensive LP training, but race was never mentioned as any reason to be suspicious of customers. However, we were also constantly reminded that we were to be extra accommodating to customers as they were accustomed to a different level of service than in other malls. Wealthy customers were actually more inclined to try to get away with a quick buck than average ones. They almost expected us to make exceptions for them when it came to expired coupons or discounts they seemed to make up on their own. Shouldn’t that kind of behavior be seen as a bigger red flag when it comes to credit fraud?

Barneys’ claim that they are avoiding fraud investigations is completely invalid, as there are many other ways to prevent shoplifters. Perhaps they would save even more money if they taught their employees real lost prevention techniques, instead of taking shortcuts by racially profiling customers and outsourcing to the NYPD. A minority customer’s business should be just as valued as a white customer’s would be. Ultimately, the company lost even more money because they had to pay for a settlement. Christian also returned the belt shortly after his arrest because he no longer wanted to have anything to do with the company.

The battle is only halfway done, however, as there is a federal case that has yet to go to trial. Hopefully, the trial will result in further regulations in what stores can and cannot do as far as customer service and lost prevention policies. All customers, provided they are not trying to take advantage of the company, should be treated as equal opportunities to make a profit for both the salesperson and the company represented.

At the end of the day, a retail store must focus on making revenue and ensuring that customers will want to return for their services. Turning away a customer because of the color of their skin is ultimately bad business for everyone. Besides, as in Barneys’ case, what’s $350 in potential theft compared to over $500,000 in legal fines? That choice is ultimately up to the retailer.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Jim.Henderson via WikiMedia Commons]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Barneys Gets Busted: The Cost of Racial Profiling in Retail appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.

I’m just going to cut to the chase: I hate Forever 21. Don’t get me wrong, I spent plenty of my parents’ money there on a seasonal basis when I was a teen, but by the time I was 17 I had completely sworn off the fast fashion mega-chain. Ironically, I used to shop at stores like Forever 21 and H&M because their merchandise was strikingly similar to the clothes I would see in magazines. But the more I immersed myself in the industry, the more I learned that these stores were the antithesis to the look I was striving to emulate. Forever 21 blatantly copies designers’ prints from big names like Diane von Furstenberg to independent clothing boutiques. In publishing that’s called plagiarism, but in retail it’s called making fashion “accessible” to the masses.

Courtesy of Simka sol via Facebook

The whole concept behind Forever 21 disturbs me. I used to walk into a store in complete awe, wondering how I was ever going to manage to thoroughly browse through all of the trendy merchandise. Now I walk in and feel disgusted.

I first noticed something was off about the store when I visited a three-level unit at the Garden State Plaza, much larger than any other store I had seen before. The bottom floor was overstuffed with sale merchandise. Upon seeing this I immediately thought, “What do they end up doing with all of these clothes? Surely, not that many people end up buying sale when there’s so much on-trend and reasonably-priced merchandise upstairs.” I pictured those factories where they shred old clothes and realized that even if the store never sells most of its sale merchandise, it will hardly make a dent in the company’s revenue. Forever 21’s clothes could cost around 20 cents to make and they sell them for $20 apiece, that’s a 1,000 percent markup. Something about that just doesn’t seem right.

Copyright laws allow for retailers like Forever 21 to copy garment designs, but not any prints that designers place on their garments. Which, if you think about it makes a lot of sense. Most clothes are made with one of a few possible patterns and ultimately it is what a designer puts of those patterns that makes their work unique and innovative. Considering part of their job description involves designing prints, how is it fair for them to do all the work only for someone else to come along and sell the same thing at a fraction of the price? Not to mention that fast fashion retailers can make a whole lot more money off of a copyrighted item by selling it in mass quantities.

Left: A dress by Diane von Furstenberg Right: Forever 21’s version. Courtesy of Susan Scafidi via Counterfeit Chic

Granted, the role of a fashion designer is also to set the example so other fashion retailers can sell on-trend clothing to the masses. However, trends usually dictate a silhouette or color that is “of the moment.” Sometimes a particular generic print may be in style, for example leopard print, but in that case there are so many variations that retailers can make that it is completely unnecessary for them to literally copy a designer’s version of that print. So why does Forever21 win or settle nearly every lawsuit filed against it?

In addition to over 50 copyright lawsuits, the company is also notorious for numerous labor violations. So not only does it cheat designers out of profits, but it also fails to pay employees fairly. Employee lawsuits go as far back as 2001, when workers claimed they were being paid under minimum wage. There was even a three-year boycott of the retailer by its U.S. garment workers. This year, U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined three stores with over $100,000 in safety violations.

Despite all of the company’s lawsuits and violations, Forever 21 is one of the largest clothing retailers in the world, so independent designers and small design firms often do not stand a chance against it. Also, Forever 21 has a history of settling before cases are ever brought to trial. Susan Scafidi, fashion law professor at Fordham University, explains that “they’ve been caught so many times, they’ve been publicly exposed so many times, they’ve even been sued — although many fewer times, because all they do is settle — this is just part of their business strategy. They go ahead and they take what they want, and when they get caught, they pay up. It’s probably cheaper than licensing it in the first place.”

The way Forever 21 runs its business is unnecessary as there are plenty of other retailers who run honest businesses, while still offering on-trend merchandise. Despite their involvement in the Bangladeshi factory collapse last year, Gap is a respected retailer in the industry and often collaborates with high-end designers and the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) in order to provide designer fashions to the masses. In fact, the recent explosion of designer collaborations with retail chains like Target, J. C. Penney, and H&M is the perfect antidote to the moral fast fashion dilemma. When designers willingly and legally offer their pieces to retailers, then there is no need to copy their designs because consumers can have access to the real thing at their desired price-level.

High-end designers control trends in this industry, but large chain retailers control how these trends get delivered to about 90 percent of consumers. Stricter copyright laws should be implemented in order to protect the artistic integrity of these designers. The garment industry is just like any other creative industry, so if it’s illegal to copy famous works of art, it should be illegal to copy wearable works of art as well.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There A Legal Way to Offer Fast Fashion to the Masses? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, clothing retailers American Apparel and Aldo fired fashion photographers Terry Richardson and Dov Charney for sexually harassing models. Several models have spoken out about their inappropriate behavior over the last few years, so why did these companies wait until now to react? Justice didn’t last long in Charney’s case, however, as the American Apparel founder and CEO was rehired a week later as strategic consultant while the company reviews any past accusations of sexual harassment.

The modeling industry is one of the few professions where workers are not always treated like real people, because the job description mostly entails selling their bodies. Until fairly recently, there were few if any laws protecting model’s rights. Last year veteran model Coco Rocha and the Model Alliance helped pass a law in the state of New York recognizing models under the age of 18 as child performers, limiting the number of hours they are allowed to work. The Model Alliance has also drafted a Model’s Bill of Rights stating that agents and photographers are to maintain a professional relationship with the models they work with, and it also calls for models to be informed ahead of time if a shoot will involve nudity so they can give prior consent. No model under the age of 17 can pose nude or semi-nude.

But there is also a bigger issue at hand: the female model’s word against that of these reputable male photographers. In this interview with HuffPost Live, Model Alliance founder Sara Ziff explains why she will never work with Richardson again and why models may feel pressured to put themselves in compromising positions, when working with photographers like him.

Ziff mentions the Model Alliance’s amnesty service as a way to provide legal aide to models who have been taken advantage of by photographers, since there are no official laws to protect them in situations like this. The Model Alliance’s efforts are certainly a step in the right direction, but potential clients like Harper’s Bazaar, American Apparel, and Aldo ultimately have the power to refuse to work with alleged offenders. These companies most likely have a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment protecting all of their other employees, so why not their models too?

Somewhere along the way, an inherent double-standard formed in the industry. Despite the decent amount of women in corporate fashion positions, the male gaze still governs a lot of what we see in magazines. These models lose their rights as humans because someone like Terry Richardson is an untouchable fixture in the industry. Ziff mentions that a model’s career isn’t really legitimized until she shoots with Richardson. Models may feel obligated to do whatever he tells them to do and he clearly takes advantage of that if he tries to engage in sexual activity with them.

If you need further convincing that there’s a double-standard, here are some of Richardson’s ads with the female models replaced with men.

Courtesy of Lauren Wade via Takepart

Notice this ad blatantly says “For Men.” Fashion is stereotypically a women’s industry yet most ads appear to be created for the male gaze. Is the fragrance for men or are those breasts for men?

Meanwhile, some women have defended Richardson when he’s come under fire. Musicians Miley Cyrus and Sky Ferreira are publicly known to be friends with the photographer and continue to work with him year in and year out. Ferreira recently claimed, “I have never been forced or manipulated into anything. I made a music video with him and I have never felt uncomfortable with Terry and had 99 percent of the creative control.” Perhaps this is because artists are protected by their own celebrity and do not have the same sense of anonymity as a model would. Someone like Richardson may see a model as just a face or body, whereas he may want to go out of his way to please a famous client like Cyrus or Ferreira.

Charney and Richardson have been able to keep their jobs for so long, despite these allegations because they have taken advantage of women whose jobs involve using their own bodies to market a product. Both women and men in the industry, however, need to realize that models are not mannequins, they are people employed to do a job that happens to involve their bodies. The job description by no means includes having their bodies violated for the pleasure of others. Ziff says it herself: “The choice between an uncomfortable sexual situation and your job, that’s the definition of sexual harassment.” If sexual harassment is unacceptable in all other workplaces, it should be unacceptable in these models’ line of work as well.

The Model Alliance is definitely taking a step in the right direction by offering a safe space for models to turn, but in order to guarantee absolute safety in their workplace, legal action must be taken. The laws passed by the state of New York also only really protect underage runway models. Sexual harassment issues lie predominantly with print models, and there need to be laws to protect them both inside and outside the studio. Not all models may belong to the Model Alliance, so if there were official laws protecting them, they might not be so afraid to speak up about harassment.

While it may be difficult to enact such regulations on an international level, the Model Alliance could at least start on a national level in collaboration with the Council of Fashion Designers of America. The industry has a responsibility to protect all of its employees, and that includes its models, the literal faces of fashion.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured Image Courtesy of [American Apparel via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Does the Fashion Industry Protect Alleged Sex Offenders Over Models? appeared first on Law Street.